New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-30
\ VIOLATION OF STATUTE.
MR. DURHAM EXCEEDS HIS AUTHORITY.
HE COMPROMISES CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERN
MENI WHICH TIE LAW FORBIDs.

| Durham's official acts and mcthods mas aIuaceou
good deal of attention and provoked much common
| in official circles The Controller has managed
| make himself thoroughly disliled by nearly every
body with whom he has been brought into official rt
lations and general satisfaction Ia expressed becaus
public attention has been drawn to some OF his pei
formances Certain facts have come into the posses
sion OF TRIBUNE correspondent which show prett.
clearly that the Controller has not only exceeded hi
authority but has been guilty OF violations OF law
| To begin WITH it has boon repeatedly decided tina
the Controller has no powers except those confcrre
on him by statute. In the case Of Waters agains
the United States the Court Of Claims held:
Tho Controller decides whether or pot the items arc an
power review revise alter Items expressly allowed
statute.
He has no power TO compromise claim agains
the United States. No officer has that power. Tit
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue in certain cases
may compromise claims in favor OF the United States
and the Secretary Of the Treasury the recommends
ton Of the Solicitor. may compromise claims in favor
of the United States except such may arise under
the postal laws Accounting officers Of the Treasury
have such power. They can only examine and
pass or reject the items OF account. Controller
Durham is an accounting officer only. and yet he has
not only undertaken to compromise claims against
the Government, but appears actually TO have done
so. Is understood that he has denied this. II Is
understood also that document of which the follow
ing is a copy has been laid before the President:
SIR: Your instructions examine United States Commits.
the sa bT found that his had
been adjusted at the Treasury and he Informed us that he
Claims only open under tie circumstances
was to examine HIM under oath n relation to bis business
questions hereto annexed In Exhibit and we submit
the same in lieu OF report Yours very respectfully,
j. MONROE WTIsKELL
Examiners Department OF Justice.
EXHIBIT A.
Bushrod ". Bell being first duly answers the fol-
lowing pfopounded him:
Q-Are Won United Circuit Court Commissioner
for the Middle District OF Alabama at Montgomery Al
o-Have You ever in any instance offered any nducoment
money article Of value TO deputy marshal or
other person whomsoever business for You
the Uned States in your dstrict Al never have in
s "a eroros uG and s@ a won b. 10 the
interest o. 6s 70 ana refuse a" wh
allow do arrive az the number OF miles travelled by
tonng the witnesses and deputy marhas who serve The
QDo You invariably swear witnesses TO the number OF
miles claimed TO have been 80 travelled by themi Al 10.
certificates issuing from court that Of any other COM
o-Havo you had agreement understanding Of
the trial OF cases or the Issuing oil processes ANohe what
0Have your accounts for services rendered United
States been adjusted by tho proper account
inspection the Treasury statement adjusting the
Any accounts have not been adjusted by the proper
received Treasury statement adjusting the same
Toiier lad Received statement Of suspensions
o~Do understand you say that your accounts have
been compromised Without any reference TO such review
Stand star Si i. % - 'O"''"
by a comPronlso that having almost despaiTed
o for The purpose Of making explanation as 10
any disputed my accounts that the Honorable First
company my attorney Introduced BY him. aud then
briefly my business Washington lie stated that no
had about up dsailow ~ toto all tie
counts OF commissioner imagined That he alluded TO all
way explanations around the next day and
% me- Tou or S words SS e he day
his once the cav following at O'clock was promptly on
hand at the appointed hour m few minutes .n 9s foaS
agreed upon compromise of the Indebtedness OF tho United
Thised sstes commis,oier The Controller Inquired MI
johnson how much Of my e2 Te%aaeh unan,i:d and re-
ing Mr. Durham then offered me one halt or sG IS which
srfe,d to SEo $500 for the entire CLAIM q
$3.50 So u had already reoovod 1858 90
leaving balance q $40 90 which Gi has has SING, aa
termed at the department. copy Of which now hand
you write hi; document yOarse ANG No r II
either and aid not until presented to mo for my sE
o@Have you followed in evsry particular the
statutes Of the United states 10 making ont your accounts
Q~Dc you consider your accounts made ont and foI
and particular item charged IN ih,m Al DO
face value ABecau'e Of great peeanary
Qwas account after oompromiso made special ~ to
/. the difference Between the face value your
account aud the amountyou accepted compromise Of the
o"whs per cent Of your compromised Is the
YOU consider this eompTomse ansl settlement up
TO that date with the Government Al do. -. mr.
Sworn and subscribed to before US this day January
A. D., 1877. at Montgomery. Ala LE,GH CnAtMEHs,
Examiners. Department OF Justice.
In another case Controller Durham not success
ful iu eiectng a compromise although be tried hard
to do &C. The account in controversy amounted tC
some $780, and the Controller offered TO allow about
one-hali OF it, II the official would surrender his claim
for the balance. In a letter to Durham the official
wrote:
have the honor to inform you that claim the allow
ance of every charged by and approved by the
Guired by law, and s claim that the services were
actually and necessarily performed by me- performed
/ administered the law understood IT, have been
waiting patiently for the settlement Of my accounts and
is legally my due Your attention Is directed 70 the fact
that Examiner Fisher examined my accounts and recon-
mendcd 10 the United States Attorney for this district
the saowance OF $40 and set forth the there
b oath Of oce examined the accounts in the light Of
Mr. Fishers report, and came 10 the conclusion that
was honestly and legally entitled TO the amounts that he
and the court approved, and Mr. Fishers recommends
tons concurred in
In reply to the letter from which the foregoing is an
extract Controller Durham wrote:
have read your two letters In response TO mine
making some propositions OF compromise as 10 your
account by your last letter that you demanding
the last farthng OF your account. was disposed
TO allow you portion OF your account. Perhaps some
OF ought be allowed, but the whole transaction Is
so covered up with icgaity that may be compelled In
the absence compromise, 10 reject the whole Of IT, II
you think that you make more by going into the
courts and putting your claim into the hands Of m attor
ney than by obtaining compromise the responsibility
will be with you and again suggest 10 you that per
hans IL would your interest to make cOmprO
mise In regard to your account.
1t will be observed that in this Controller
Durham not only made una thorized proposition to
claimant, but also offered TO compromise and allow
one-haf OF q claim Of which he says, Perhaps some
of might be allowed but the whole transaction Is
covered up with ilegality that in the absence Of
compromise he may be compelled 10 eject the whole
OF IT,"
1t should be borne in mind, first, that Controller
Durham had no right to offer comp romiso second
that the whole transaction" ia 80 tinctured with
fraud that ho might be compelled TO reject the entire